Talk:Direct democracy
Latest comment: 4 months ago by 196.188.35.22 in topic Essence of direct democracy
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Direct democracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Boy, is this poorly written. edit
Poorly written. 84.229.133.113 (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is poorly written. For instance, the author waves general nouns such as, say, Anarchists, as if everyone knows what they mean exactly, and even more malicious, as if all anarchists believe one and the same thing uniformly, as if they were all robots. To make things even worse,the author then lists several of those general nouns, all of them extremely left oriented, or even with terrorist tendencies, that support direct democracy. As if only radicals support direct democracy. It's pure propaganda, the author of those passages does not bother to explain anything in any detail, nor to provide a counterexample: they just keep pushing in their own malicious direction. Also, the use of general nouns is hurtful, since it's political new-talk and does not provide any information at all, because general nouns do not refer to anything specific and real. That's why they're general. Such as, again, say, anarchists. If the author mentions anarchism as a philosophical concept with very well known literary representatives, why don't they say so then? Even then putting everything into a subject of few select anarchist books is extremely malicious. Improve it? Yes, delete those general propaganda, there's no other way to improve it. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.196.250 (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's the least of the problem. It is a lie too, but if we change it the anarchists will just change it back and Wiki likes tha. 2600:4040:7EDC:6400:1593:A59A:2D24:14DF (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Svody. Peer reviewers: Octopus's garden.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Civic Education edit
Definition of direct democracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.164.81 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Rojava edit
Hello. I find it difficult to understand the presence of the "Rojava" section in this article, because I do not see the link with the general theme of direct democracy. Kimdome (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Sortition? edit
"Fishkin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small, but still representative, number of people from the general public.[9][37]"
Is the above referring to [sortition] or something similar? Should a link or discussion of sortition be added here? Phytographer (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, a link to sortition should be added. HudecEmil (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah yeah 171.76.87.217 (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sussy Bakka 171.76.87.217 (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Essence of direct democracy edit
The essence of this topic is as follows
To let the people determine their laws. 196.188.35.22 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)